Meta-analytic procedures for social research

Doctors experience high levels of work stress even under normal circumstances, but many would be reluctant to disclose mental health difficulties or seek help for them, with stigma an often-cited reason. The coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) crisis places additional pressure on doctors and on the healthcare system in general and research shows that such pressure brings a greater risk of psychological distress for doctors. For this reason, we argue that the authorities and healthcare executives must show strong leadership and support for doctors and their families during the COVID-19 outbreak and call for efforts to reduce mental health stigma in clinical workplaces. This can be facilitated by deliberately adding ‘healthcare staff mental health support process’ as an ongoing agenda item to high-level management planning meetings.

/pdf/the-mental-health-of-doctors-during-the-covid-19-pandemic-3ax27dhn4u.pdf

The mental health of doctors during the COVID-19 pandemic.

OBJECTIVES:
The purpose of this exploratory study was to obtain greater insight into the effects of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction (MBSR) and Mindfulness-Based Cognitive Therapy (MBCT) on the mental health of employees

METHODS:
Using PsycINFO, PubMed, and CINAHL, we performed a systematic review in October 2015 of studies investigating the effects of MBSR and MBCT on various aspects of employees' mental health Studies with a pre-post design (ie without a control group) were excluded

RESULTS:
24 articles were identified, describing 23 studies: 22 on the effects of MBSR and 1 on the effects of MBSR in combination with some aspects of MBCT Since no study focused exclusively on MBCT, its effects are not described in this systematic review Of the 23 studies, 2 were of high methodological quality, 15 were of medium quality and 6 were of low quality A meta-analysis was not performed due to the emergent and relatively uncharted nature of the topic of investigation, the exploratory character of this study, and the diversity of outcomes in the studies reviewed Based on our analysis, the strongest outcomes were reduced levels of emotional exhaustion (a dimension of burnout), stress, psychological distress, depression, anxiety, and occupational stress Improvements were found in terms of mindfulness, personal accomplishment (a dimension of burnout), (occupational) self-compassion, quality of sleep, and relaxation

CONCLUSION:
The results of this systematic review suggest that MBSR may help to improve psychological functioning in employees

/pdf/effects-of-mindfulness-based-stress-reduction-on-employees-3nly4fk8vq.pdf

Effects of Mindfulness-Based Stress Reduction on employees' mental health: A systematic review.

Background Resilience can be defined as the maintenance or quick recovery of mental health during or after periods of stressor exposure, which may result from a potentially traumatising event, challenging life circumstances, a critical life transition phase, or physical illness. Healthcare professionals, such as nurses, physicians, psychologists and social workers, are exposed to various work-related stressors (e.g. patient care, time pressure, administration) and are at increased risk of developing mental disorders. This population may benefit from resilience-promoting training programmes. Objectives To assess the effects of interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals, that is, healthcare staff delivering direct medical care (e.g. nurses, physicians, hospital personnel) and allied healthcare staff (e.g. social workers, psychologists). Search methods We searched CENTRAL, MEDLINE, Embase, 11 other databases and three trial registries from 1990 to June 2019. We checked reference lists and contacted researchers in the field. We updated this search in four key databases in June 2020, but we have not yet incorporated these results. Selection criteria Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) in adults aged 18 years and older who are employed as healthcare professionals, comparing any form of psychological intervention to foster resilience, hardiness or post-traumatic growth versus no intervention, wait-list, usual care, active or attention control. Primary outcomes were resilience, anxiety, depression, stress or stress perception and well-being or quality of life. Secondary outcomes were resilience factors. Data collection and analysis Two review authors independently selected studies, extracted data, assessed risks of bias, and rated the certainty of the evidence using the GRADE approach (at post-test only). Main results We included 44 RCTs (high-income countries: 36). Thirty-nine studies solely focused on healthcare professionals (6892 participants), including both healthcare staff delivering direct medical care and allied healthcare staff. Four studies investigated mixed samples (1000 participants) with healthcare professionals and participants working outside of the healthcare sector, and one study evaluated training for emergency personnel in general population volunteers (82 participants). The included studies were mainly conducted in a hospital setting and included physicians, nurses and different hospital personnel (37/44 studies). Participants mainly included women (68%) from young to middle adulthood (mean age range: 27 to 52.4 years). Most studies investigated group interventions (30 studies) of high training intensity (18 studies; > 12 hours/sessions), that were delivered face-to-face (29 studies). Of the included studies, 19 compared a resilience training based on combined theoretical foundation (e.g. mindfulness and cognitive-behavioural therapy) versus unspecific comparators (e.g. wait-list). The studies were funded by different sources (e.g. hospitals, universities), or a combination of different sources. Fifteen studies did not specify the source of their funding, and one study received no funding support. Risk of bias was high or unclear for most studies in performance, detection, and attrition bias domains. At post-intervention, very-low certainty evidence indicated that, compared to controls, healthcare professionals receiving resilience training may report higher levels of resilience (standardised mean difference (SMD) 0.45, 95% confidence interval (CI) 0.25 to 0.65; 12 studies, 690 participants), lower levels of depression (SMD -0.29, 95% CI -0.50 to -0.09; 14 studies, 788 participants), and lower levels of stress or stress perception (SMD -0.61, 95% CI -1.07 to -0.15; 17 studies, 997 participants). There was little or no evidence of any effect of resilience training on anxiety (SMD -0.06, 95% CI -0.35 to 0.23; 5 studies, 231 participants; very-low certainty evidence) or well-being or quality of life (SMD 0.14, 95% CI -0.01 to 0.30; 13 studies, 1494 participants; very-low certainty evidence). Effect sizes were small except for resilience and stress reduction (moderate). Data on adverse effects were available for three studies, with none reporting any adverse effects occurring during the study (very-low certainty evidence). Authors' conclusions For healthcare professionals, there is very-low certainty evidence that, compared to control, resilience training may result in higher levels of resilience, lower levels of depression, stress or stress perception, and higher levels of certain resilience factors at post-intervention. The paucity of medium- or long-term data, heterogeneous interventions and restricted geographical distribution limit the generalisability of our results. Conclusions should therefore be drawn cautiously. The findings suggest positive effects of resilience training for healthcare professionals, but the evidence is very uncertain. There is a clear need for high-quality replications and improved study designs.

Psychological interventions to foster resilience in healthcare professionals

https://estudogeral.sib.uc.pt/bitstream/10316/47306/1/IJNS-D-16-00623R2-11-44.pdf

Effectiveness of a mindfulness-based intervention on oncology nurses' burnout and compassion fatigue symptoms: A non-randomized study.

Workplace stress is high among healthcare professionals (HCPs) and is associated with reduced psychological health, quality of care and patient satisfaction. This systematic review and meta-analysis reviews evidence on the effectiveness of mindfulness-based interventions (MBIs) for reducing stress in HCPs. A systematic literature search was conducted. Papers were screened for suitability using inclusion criteria and nine papers were subjected to review and quality assessment. Seven papers, for which full statistical findings could be obtained, were also subjected to meta-analysis. Results of the meta-analysis suggest that MBIs have the potential to significantly improve stress among HCPs; however, there was evidence of a file drawer problem. The quality of the studies was high in relation to the clarity of aims, data collection and analysis, but weaker in terms of sample size and the use of theoretical frameworks. MBIs have the potential to reduce stress among HCPs; however, more high-quality research is needed before this finding can be confirmed. Future studies would benefit from long-term follow-up measures to determine any continuing effects of mindfulness training on stress outcomes. Copyright © 2016 John Wiley & Sons, Ltd.

/pdf/how-effective-are-mindfulness-based-interventions-for-46gihyeljq.pdf

Catherine Burgess

Papers

How Effective are Mindfulness-Based Interventions for Reducing Stress Among Healthcare Professionals? A Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis